Gut feelings about Conference

[Anonymous]

So now that conference is over for the next six months, I was wondering what was everyone gut reaction to some our unique concerns here at StayLDS. Do you feel like we are being acknowledged as a group and that your were uplifted by the conference as a whole?

I will start. I was pleased about the announcement about the new lessons manual for the youth but I really hope that it is more opened about our history and other concerns that are challenging our faith and not just presenting the same things with just a new spin. For example, the BOM translation should be taught how it happened and not the sanitized version. I think that the change in the age for missionaries is mostly a good thing and I like that girls are allowed to go two years earlier(more equality) but truthfully I questioned the motive of the whole thing. I’m trying to stay positive so I hope it is inspired.

I was hoping they would have addresses those of us struggling with a faith crises more and openly acknowledged that this is happening but my gut reaction is they still are holding on to the idea that Faith= good, and looking at the internet=bad. The one example about the fake letter from Martin Harris that caused people to leave the church and that people shouldn’t lose their faith just because they read what some bad person posted. It would have been a great time to address some of the truths that have come to light in the last 50 or so years that the church knows to be true and also knows that has caused some concerns. I wasn’t expecting that would happen, but I was hoping.

I also noticed that there was little of Joseph Smith and a lot about Christ and us being Christians. Maybe this was in part due to the upcoming election. I was good with this conference being more about Christ but again I question the motives. Overall I thought that conference was just OK, with some new stuff, which is good, and most of the rest about like all the conferences in the past. I was really hoping to be more inspired but sadly I was not.

One other question. Since going through your faith crises do you feel less inspired by things like conference or church in general and even in life than before? I’m looking forward to your thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Typically I can only process so much, so I get some out of conference, nap through some of it, and plan to revisit by reading it which often gives me very different feelings than listening live.

But my initial responses to your thoughts are as follows:

church0333 wrote:

they still are holding on to the idea that Faith= good, and looking at the internet=bad

Yes…I caught this idea. One talk even made me feel I was being called to repent for Internet activity.

church0333 wrote:

I also noticed that there was little of Joseph Smith and a lot about Christ and us being Christians.

Yes, I noticed this too, although I think it is multiple factors. The feedback they are getting from Romney is one, but they also did other surveys and got specific feedback from people, which is why they had media campaigns and such. I put less reason on Romney as I do just their awareness of people are hearing more about us and many have negative impressions of mormons.

I like conference, it gives me lots of reading material. I had gone through the last conference several times, so I’m ready for new material. But all things in wisdom and order. I go through them at my own pace.

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

I also noticed that there was little of Joseph Smith and a lot about Christ and us being Christians. Maybe this was in part due to the upcoming election. I was good with this conference being more about Christ but again I question the motives.

You can’t have Mormonism without Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, but Mormonism itself is not ABOUT either of those two things… it is about God, Jesus, the Plan of Salvation, and us. So, I don’t know that it’s a bad thing to shift the focus once in awhile. While I was still a firm believer, I was seriously bothered by a Stake President speaking just a couple of days before Christmas, and his topic was not Christ, his birth or his atonement, but rather, Joseph Smith, because he was speaking on the birth-date of the Prophet. The pendulum swings back and forth. Right now, it’s swinging toward a more modern Mormonism, in which Jesus is the center of the faith. Who cares if that is motivated by internal or external influences?

church0333 wrote:

One other question. Since going through your faith crises do you feel less inspired by things like conference or church in general and even in life than before? I’m looking forward to your thoughts.

Yes, I do feel less inspired, or affected by the church. That’s not necessarily a good thing. Honestly, I miss it. There is a certain exhilaration, even now, related to the General Priesthood Meeting, because of the company that you keep, and the quality of the talks (entire FP, usually the Pres of the Q12, Presiding Bishopric member). However, GC, as a whole, I find less palatable. I don’t mean to be disparaging toward anyone that likes it… that’s fine by me. But even when I was still a believer, I thought it was pretty boring overall… too many pointless talks that are badly delivered. Lots of encouragement, very little content. If aliens are listening to our transmissions and all they have to use as a guide to understand Mormonism is General Conference, they’d really be confused about what we actually believe… they’d have a difficult time piecing together our concepts of God, Jesus, the Plan of Salvation, and us.

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

The one example about the fake letter from Martin Harris that caused people to leave the church and that people shouldn’t lose their faith just because they read what some bad person posted. It would have been a great time to address some of the truths that have come to light in the last 50 or so years that the church knows to be true and also knows that has caused some concerns.

This was the only part of conference that I watched. DW called me into the room after hearing about the topic. I think that she still has hope that someone in a position of authority will have the right answers. They must right, or otherwise they wouldn’t be in authority? My take away from that story was that an acceptable way to deal will negative historical information is to assume that it is a forgery that hasn’t been discovered yet. That’s fine, just another justification for why some honerable and upstanding members of the church lose faith – they believed forged documents to be true. No problem, and DW’s heart was in the right place.

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

The one example about the fake letter from Martin Harris that caused people to leave the church and that people shouldn’t lose their faith just because they read what some bad person posted

This statement bothered me greatly. He seemed to be pointing out the fake letter as “proof” that everything that isn’t faith promoting is a fake, or in his words, “invented”. If only this were true, I could go back to the way things were.

BTW, was he referring to the “Salamander Letter'”? I was very young when the whole Hoffman thing happened…

[Anonymous]

Thanks guys for the feed back. When the Brother was talking about the Salamander letter, my wife, who is very much a cafeteria Mormon, but doesn’t want to know any thing(right now) about the difficult issues looked over at me with this “pay attention” look and said something like the internet not always right you know. I just smiled back, but I was thinking that it isn’t always wrong either.

[Anonymous]

There were some cringe moments, and I certainly enjoyed some talks more than others, but, overall, I really enjoyed this one.

More than anything else, I loved the obvious focus on Christ, love and service. Elder Packer’s talk was very touching to me, and I had to wonder if it will be the last we hear from him. If so, it was a wonderful way to end his sermons. I also loved the talk by the Seventy whose child died – not because we never hear about death in General Conference :silent: , but because he mentioned more than once that the pain never goes away and that difficult things like that can cause legitimate periods of doubt and darkness. I really liked that, since we haven’t heard it enough in the past.

[Anonymous]

I have thought at times, as someone who studied a little about elocution, teaching methods, and delivery, that the manner of speaking could be a little more engaging or effective in reaching “the one” and not just putting to sleep the congregation. Phrasing and pacing don’t vary that much from person to person, generation to generation, with certain speech patterns being emulated from one GA to the next, emphasis and phrasing being pretty similar no matter where the speaker comes from as long as they’ve been in Church service for a while. I find this especially evident when someone from the Primary Presidency speaks; virtually every time, it seems they speak to conference members as if they were children (understandable if their message was actually directed at children, but 99% of the time it is not) and is a little off-putting to hear unless you like to be spoken to that way.

We have a lay leadership. They don’t go to divinity school and take classes at “Effective Preaching from the Pulpit” or “How to Wake up the Back Row with a Sermon” (kidding!), but it wouldn’t hurt for some of them to keep their own style instead of becoming “one” in appearance and mannerisms. For this reason, I love listening to Pres. Uchdorf. I would love to listen to someone with a good ol’ Southern drawl or a nice British accent just for some variety in presenting the message.

I don’t feel any need to address the contents of the messages. That is beyond my pay grade.

One of the reasons I chose my avatar for J. Golden Kimball was his exemplifying that having everyone do everything the same way just isn’t required for the kingdom of God, no matter how many white-collared shirts and suits you throw at it! J. Golden was a hero of mine. People would often wake up at conference just to hear what part of Mormon culture he would joke about or what “colorful language” he would use to illustrate his points. Truly, there will never be another Uncle Golden.

[Anonymous]

Think back about the salamander letter, didn’t the church pay a lot of money for it before they found out it was a fake. Are only the leaders allowed to look at the history and dole out what we need to know. This again is just a gut reaction and I am really trying to stay positive.

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

Think back about the salamander letter, didn’t the church pay a lot of money for it before they found out it was a fake. Are only the leaders allowed to look at the history and dole out what we need to know. This again is just a gut reaction and I am really trying to stay positive.

Just to set the record straight, the Salamander Letter was not purchased by the Church. Mark Hofmann “found it” and tried to sell it to the Church through collector Lyn Jacobs, but the Church declined. Eventually, Steven Christiansen purchased it and donated it to the Church. None of the Hofmann forgeries were kept secret. The Church did purchase other forgeries from Hofmann, usually in the form of trade. Most of them were innocuous. The Salamander Letter was the most potentially damaging to the Church. The Joseph Smith III Blessing was also a potential embarrassment to the Church and the Church DID purchase that one in exchange for some items, but at the time, the RLDS Church was also trying to purchase it, and had been shown the text, so it’s not like the LDS Church was going to keep it quiet. Whether the Church intended to keep any of these items secret or not can never be known, because Hofmann always leaked the information, or shared it openly. In the case of the Salamander Letter, I don’t believe the Church ever accepted the content of the letter to be accurate.

Sadly, Steven Christensen, who had purchased the Salamander Letter, was one of the murder victims of Hofmann.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

he mentioned more than once that the pain never goes away and that difficult things like that can cause legitimate periods of doubt and darkness. I really liked that, since we haven’t heard it enough in the past.

Thanks Ray, I would be interested in anything else you can remember about this talk (who gave it etc.). Just the phrase “legitimate periods of doubt and darkness” could be the key to feeling my process validated in the Mormon arena. I am hopeful.

wjclerk wrote:

I have thought at times, as someone who studied a little about elocution, teaching methods, and delivery, that the manner of speaking could be a little more engaging or effective in reaching “the one” and not just putting to sleep the congregation. Phrasing and pacing don’t vary that much from person to person, generation to generation, with certain speech patterns being emulated from one GA to the next, emphasis and phrasing being pretty similar no matter where the speaker comes from as long as they’ve been in Church service for a while.

Speaking of testimony timbre, rhythm, and pitch from an anthropological perspective – David Knowlton writes the following:

Quote:

At key points it generally drops down a third or a fourth and stays flat to the end of the phrase. Back up, level out, drop. Back up, level out, drop, stay flat. When it flattens that’s the crucial moment of a talk- the moment when people are telling you the most significant spiritual things….Additionally, the tonal range of the expression drops to the middle low range and the timbre becomes husky, indicating to the congregation the speaker is feeling emotional: that she is feeling the spirit. This important form keys native Mormons to the presence of the Spirit.

To some of us this speech pattern may often sound quite dull and dry, but it does key people to the movement of the spirit. I call this “spiritual speech” because the style also typifies how general authorities give talks, in that very same rhythmic, leveled, toned way, dropping down at the end. Most Mormons can reproduce the style, and probably do when they bear testimony, and are not conscious of doing it…

Our ritual performance skill very clearly – indexes – to other members the quality of our belonging, the quality of our personal testimony. If one were to analyze the social hierarchy of almost any ward, she would probably find that the individuals who are best at performing ritual speech are also those who occupy important positions in the hierarchy. They will be the ones in the ward who have tremendous prestige and are recognized for their spirituality. This indexing is necessary among any social group…Some individuals are better performers and some are worse. Performance thereby can index status and spirituality.

The entire paper is found here: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/081-20-27.pdf

It has at times been helpful to me to recognize that I am a member of a group of people with specific ways of organization and interaction. If I were a member of a bee colony, it would do me no good to complain about how I detest the bee dance or the organizational hierarchy. We are poeple – we are social. Part of being social is forming groups with both written and unwritten rules and status. This is not good or bad, it just is. Sometimes remembering this can help me not to take the interactions as seriously.

[Anonymous]

I have to agree with some of the posts about this topic on how all talks have taken on the same appearance and mannerisms. Since the talks have become prepared months in advance and read from teleprompters, you might as well just read them or listen to them later.

I’m dating myself but gone are the fun speakers like LeGrand Richards, Mathew Cowley and Paul Dunn. I either grew up listening to them in conference or, in Mathew Cowley’s case older broadcasts. Really, you could tune in to a conference from six years ago and hear the same topics emphasizing the same things.

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

So now that conference is over for the next six months, I was wondering what was everyone gut reaction to some our unique concerns here at StayLDS. Do you feel like we are being acknowledged as a group and that your were uplifted by the conference as a whole?….

I was hoping they would have addresses those of us struggling with a faith crises more and openly acknowledged that this is happening but my gut reaction is they still are holding on to the idea that Faith= good, and looking at the internet=bad.

Elder Cook addressed ME (us, if anyone wants to include yourself) on Saturday morning. He quoted Alma 5:26: “…if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?” and said local leaders express two concerns:

-“The challenge of increased unrighteousness in the world”

-“The apathy and lack of commitment of some members.”

Elder Cook said “Alma’s challenge has never been more important” and:

Quote:

It is not surprising that some in the church believe they can’t answer Alma’s question with a resound ‘yes.’ They do not feel so now. They feel they are in a spiritual drought. Others are angry, hurt, or disillusioned. If these descriptions apply to you, it is important to evaluate why you cannot feel so now. Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions, but they have made unwise choices. Some are casual in their observance of sacred covenants. Others spend most of their time giving first-class devotion to lesser causes. Some allow intense cultural or political views to weaken their allegiance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some have immersed themselves in internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony.

Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed. Immersion in the scriptures is essential for spiritual nourishment. The word of God inspires commitment and acts as a healing balm for hurt feelings, anger, or disillusionment. When our commitment is diminished for any reason, part of the solution is repentance. Commitment and repentance are closely intertwined.

I know I have made unwise choices. I have not been valiant it keeping covenants. I waste time on lesser causes and immerse myself in internet materials that decrease faith. Still, I’m not at fault for having jacked-up brain chemicals (unless it was exacerbated by my recreational drug use). I am going to ponder this more.

church0333 wrote:

I also noticed that there was little of Joseph Smith and a lot about Christ and us being Christians. Maybe this was in part due to the upcoming election. I was good with this conference being more about Christ but again I question the motives.

I think Christ and Christianity is emphasized much more than Joseph Smith in every conference. I didn’t notice any difference in this one.

church0333 wrote:

One other question. Since going through your faith crises do you feel less inspired by things like conference or church in general and even in life than before? I’m looking forward to your thoughts.

I have a hard time hearing good stories about how people are blessed and I could have such blessings if……

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

So now that conference is over for the next six months, I was wondering what was everyone gut reaction to some our unique concerns here at StayLDS. Do you feel like we are being acknowledged as a group and that your were uplifted by the conference as a whole?…I was hoping they would have addresses those of us struggling with a faith crises more and openly acknowledged that this is happening but my gut reaction is they still are holding on to the idea that Faith= good, and looking at the internet=bad. The one example about the fake letter from Martin Harris that caused people to leave the church and that people shouldn’t lose their faith…One other question. Since going through your faith crises do you feel less inspired by things like conference or church in general and even in life than before? I’m looking forward to your thoughts.

Church leaders are definitely well aware of disaffected members like some of us because they specifically talked about less faithful members who read less-than-flattering things about the Church on the internet and how this affected their testimony and level of commitment to the Church and in some cases they ended up falling away completely. Also, Jeffrey R. Holland repeated the idea that picking and choosing what parts of the “gospel” you agree with is supposedly not the way to go. Personally, I think their dismissive and unsympathetic reaction to this trend of more cafeteria Mormons and vocal apostates than in the past was not very uplifting or inspired at all.

Basically they lump together members that have gone through a faith crisis together with all the Jack Mormons and the general idea is that if you are not completely on board with everything the Church teaches for whatever reason then you are automatically wrong and need to repent. That’s what stood out the most to me about this conference; I heard several different leaders all asking members to repent of various supposed mistakes such as doubts about the Church’s story, “bad” habits (M-word?), lack of commitment, apathy, etc. Have they ever considered the possibility that maybe less commitment and zealotry could actually be a highly appropriate response to the Church’s demands and realistic ability to deliver on all the promises they make as far as we really know for sure? I doubt it; most of these talks I listened to sounded like the product of extremely selective tunnel-vision heavily focused on one side of the story.

One problem with these calls to repentance is that this is simply not going to happen in most cases. It’s hard to blame people too much for instinctively feeling like some of this is not nearly as important as the Church acts like it is. Whether people don’t really like the strict and austere active LDS lifestyle or don’t really believe the Church’s story or both the truth is that this is probably never going to change at least 9 times out of 10 once people are already set in their ways. If they want to argue that this uncompromising approach is still worth it for the sake of the few that actually do return to full TBM status (scorched-earth policy) I don’t believe that either because it basically creates a judgmental and intolerant environment that makes it hard for active Mormons to live with or get along with non-Mormons or less faithful members as well as possible. This harsh approach also severely limits any truly positive influence the Church could have when people basically stop listening and don’t want anything to do with the Church anymore.

[Anonymous]

Devilsadvocate said

Quote:

Church leaders are definitely well aware of disaffected members like some of us because they specifically talked about less faithful members who read less-than-flattering things about the Church on the internet and how this affected their testimony and level of commitment to the Church and in some cases they ended up falling away completely. Also, Jeffrey R. Holland repeated the idea that picking and choosing what parts of the “gospel” you agree with is supposedly not the way to go. Personally, I think their dismissive and unsympathetic reaction to this trend of more cafeteria Mormons and vocal apostates than in the past was not very uplifting or inspired at all.

Their dismissive and unsympathetic reaction not only does not inspire me, it also makes me sad and a little angry. I can understand that they need to be careful but still…..Elder Holland came to are Stake and in one of the meeting said that the church(the Brethren) appreciates all the service we give even if its not all we need to do. That made me feel pretty good and I thought it was time they recognize that many of us are doing the best we can.

Quote:

Basically they lump together members that have gone through a faith crisis together with all the Jack Mormons and the general idea is that if you are not completely on board with everything the Church teaches for whatever reason then you are automatically wrong and need to repent. That’s what stood out the most to me about this conference; I heard several different leaders all asking members to repent of various supposed mistakes such as doubts about the Church’s story, “bad” habits (M-word?), lack of commitment, apathy, etc. Have they ever considered the possibility that maybe less commitment and zealotry could actually be a highly appropriate response to the Church’s demands and realistic ability to deliver on all the promises they make as far as we really know for sure? I doubt it; most of these talks I listened to sounded like the product of extremely selective tunnel-vision heavily focused on one side of the story.

I’m going through a faith crisis but still I do my callings on the HC and my HT, I treat my wife great and love my fellowman and even have some “bad” habits (m-word?) when needed and I don’t feel like I need to repent because of these things. I am far from perfect but I’m still doing a lot for others around me and I think I am a pretty good guy. Doubts are not sins.

Quote:

One problem with these calls to repentance is that this is simply not going to happen in most cases. It’s hard to blame people too much for instinctively feeling like some of this is not nearly as important as the Church acts like it is. Whether people don’t really like the strict and austere active LDS lifestyle or don’t really believe the Church’s story or both the truth is that this is probably never going to change at least 9 times out of 10 once people are already set in their ways. If they want to argue that this uncompromising approach is still worth it for the sake of the few that actually do return to full TBM status (scorched-earth policy) I don’t believe that either because it basically creates a judgmental and intolerant environment that makes it hard for active Mormons to live with or get along with non-Mormons or less faithful members as well as possible. This harsh approach also severely limits any truly positive influence the Church could have when people basically stop listening and don’t want anything to do with the Church anymore.

I just agree with everything else you said.

I am kind of at a lose right now. Telling me to repent just wants me to dig my heals in deeper and I am not normally like that. You see, the thing is I want to stay, I think it makes a difference for me and also for those around me. The church has helped me to become a type of person I want to be, the kind I need to be, so different than the person I probably would have been. I recognize this. I need God and I want to need the church but I want them to need and want me for who I am and for what I believe. I can deal with some of the church history issues if they just let the chip fall where they will but the church has to let me have some of my issues also. I think locally that there is a lot of acceptance of the cafeteria mormons(I live on the west coast) but It would be nice if the same attitude came from the top.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

[Author]

Posts